11 minutes ago, JHRover said:

They're just disproving the FFP myth

No major sales

Still got Lucas Joao, Puscas, Hoillett and others there

Difference is that their owners want to invest, ours don't. Quite simple really.

Not sure of this is meant to be a joke or not, but they're literally only signing frees and cheap loans who nobody else wants on account of them being under a FFP induced transfer ban. 

I don't think you could pick a better example of what could go wrong if you try and cheat FFP and fail

.

6 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

You could argue all proven players that would do a job.

Shane Long guarantees you 15+ goals. 

Can't say the same for any of our players.

Don't think you could say it about BREO either who scored nothing second half of the season 

He's had a good career, but he's not scored more than 10 league goals in a season for more than 10 years. He's not scored 15 in the last 6 years combined!

11 hours ago, longsiders1882 said:

Suggestion is he’s had a medical today - happy with that signing if it happens. 
 

Those players that are going I’d like us to get done as early as possible. Collins always looked likely to happen, Cornet another (though somethings he’s said suggest he’s happy to stay 🤷‍♂️) McNeill, Roberts, Brownhill if they are happening need sorting. We still need a keeper, a striker and replacements for McNeill/Cornet/Roberts  if they go. So yes we are active but we’ve got a bigger rebuild on than you so we needed to be quicker than you.

Interesting. Such a big call that. He's obviously a class above the vast majority of players at this level, and could be the difference between going up or not. Having said that, didn't he miss plenty of last season through injury, despite only playing once a week? You might be able to put the decent fee that you should get for him to better use elsewhere. 

I feel like every post I make on this thread is questioning the fitness and hunger of your players at this level, so I'll try to stop after this one!

9 minutes ago, 1864roverite said:

Repeat ad finitum if a player wants to run his contract down the club can do nothing about it it’s as simple as that 

Yes (apart from sell them), but then you question how early players make that decision and what else could've been done beforehand.

Perhaps one or two (Rothwell - to take an example) were always going to run down his contract because he figures that's always how he gets the best deal in the future.  But if we looked at the likes of Armstrong, Brereton, Rothwell and Lenihan and genuinely thought they had the potential to kick on, then we had the chance to offer them improved deals when their stock wasn't as high which would've cost us a bit in the medium term, but could've delivered a king's ransom when they would finally be sold (or even play a part in a successful promotion bid). 

6 minutes ago, islander200 said:

They never sell players or get full market value for them though.

Like letting Armstrong run his contract down to a year.Similar with Brererton.The 3 that have gone on a free this summer 250k outlay on Rothwell, they all could have been sold last summer for some profit. 

Turning down the 15 million bid from West Brom for Dack the January Darren Moore was in charge of them.

Rhodes when he was here wanted out for a long time, bigger bids were turned down than what we got for him in the end.  

Mowbray was here 5 year...2 players of any value sold in that time.There was bound to have been other interest in some of our players, Lenihen to Sheffield United being one. 

They definitely don't look after their investments that's for sure.

Not sure about Rhodes - didn't we get around £12 million or thereabouts? - but generally I think this is spot on. 

Trading smartly is absolutely imperative for clubs without parachute payments coming in. I suppose that you could argue that we've been slightly unlucky in that a disproportionate number of players have really kicked on to another level in the final 12-18 months of their deals, but you make yourself a hostage to fortune if you're not proactive enough with the contracts of players good enough to be in demand. 

I'm all for sensible budgets, but Brentford have showed that you need to speculate a little bit to accumulate, and then hopefully grow from there. They sold Watkins for near enough double what we got for Armstrong despite him scoring fewer goals. 

26 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Its absolutely crazy how many seem so convinced that FFP is stopping them from spending any more.

Can't really speak for others, but I think most who bring up FFP do so because it means Venkys wouldn't be allowed to spend much more than they do, even if they wanted to. 

Jumping the gun slightly here, but did we ever establish how large the sell-on clause was for Raya when we sold him?

5 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Do we pay the wages Stoke pay either? 

My point was generally more about, players going where the money is, the culture of a club won’t even be part of the conversation if you don’t get close to the going rate.

Agree completely with your broader point.

I think Stoke are quite a good example of how tough clubs can find things though under FFP. My understanding (which could be wrong) is that their wage bill has been cut quite drastically after spending buckets in their first few seasons post-relegation, even though their owner is willing to invest. 

I'd like to think that the evidence by the end of the window is that we're willing to pay the going rate at least compared to the clubs that we're currently competing with, but sadly at the moment there are probably 6 clubs in the division who have means which go way beyond what we can do. You'd probably expect around four of them at least to occupy the top 6 at the end of the year if recent seasons are anything to go by. 

5 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Clubs I would say our are peers, I.e non parachute, top half clubs are seemingly offering much higher wages. 

In that case ‘the project’, ‘culture’, ‘vision’, ‘JDT’s leadership’ and all the rest of it, as worthy as it is, won’t even get a hearing.
 

Are they? Championship clubs with parachute payments still coming in are Norwich, Burnley, Watford, West Brom, Sheffield United.

Out of the rest, the only club who look like they're obviously throwing money about on wages appears to be 'Boro, and they're arguably doing so off the back of a impending £20 million sale. I could be wrong of course, but it seems as though we're similar to most other clubs without recent prem money. 

1 minute ago, bluebruce said:

He has never played a Premiership game. It would be a risk for any such team.

If the lad wants to leave because he wants to play every week, he'll be going to a Championship team. Not ridiculous that it would be at Rovers, but sadly as we've seen, that will be partially dependant on the budgets of other clubs that are in for him.

2 hours ago, SuperBrfc said:

It's all about opinions, so here goes. The underlying reason is experience.

Hourihane - A step above anybody we have in that area, for me. Has the creativity and experience, class player. A steal on a free and to let a player like him go to Derby in their current state is galling.

Mendez-Laing - A proper winger, strong, quick and an upgrade on Dolan. Can also play on the left too. Has done it in the Championship before and even looked decent in the Premier League, scoring at OT one time. Nothing against Dolan, but NML would have been an experienced upgrade.

Barkhuizen - Showed during his time at Preston that he was a good player. Knows the league and can play out wide and down the middle. We could do worse on a free.

James Chester - experienced centre back, on a par with Lenihan in terms of ability, imo. I'd certainly have Chester ahead of Carter, Phillips, Magloire or any other kid we want to throw in.

McGoldrick - Wily, clever forward at this level and scores goals in this league. Good hold up play too. Might not start every game but would be good to have around and we'd actually have a central striker when he's on the pitch. Him or Burns/Vale? It's not even a question, for me.

Might be a very unpopular opinion, but I think Burns and Vale are more likely to be the next Butterworth and McBride, than the next Armstrong and Brereton. Give them a chance to see what they can do, fine, but I'm not expecting much.

I fear we're over egging how good some of these kids are and the reality of the Championship will slap us in the face if we don't bring some established players in. It's an unforgiving league and we're in danger of being lost in romanticism. We've lost key players, the loanees have gone, the squad is in a right state and if we don't bring in the required quality I think some will be shocked by how poor we look.

A backline of Brown (or JRC), Carter, Wharton, Pickering will take us down!

There is no criticism labelled at JDT or Broughton here. It's the bastards above them. Trying to flog us a youth project because they don't want to spend. "We're going to develop the kids", just bloody come out and say "we won't be spending much".

I hate that the positivity and enthusiasm that Broughton and JDT brought with them is being drained away due to the same old, dithering crap from people above them who don't know what they are doing.

Agree completely on relying on youth too quickly. If a player hasn't played senior football yet, you can't rely on them to be good enough straight away. You might get lucky with one or two, but then again look at how long it took Buckley to show his talent.

I disagree on the players you talk about though. There's a real art to picking up players when they're past their best. It's much easier to pick up a Danny Murphy than it is a Gordan Cowans. 

Taking them one by one:

McGoldrick - Never really been prolific even in this league. Had serious injuries, turns 35 before Christmas. 

James Chester - Had an excellent career at this level but Stoke fans thought he was a liability last year. A big downgrade on Lenihan in my view. 

Barkhuizen - Again, never been prolific if you're playing him as a forward. Like his attitude, but apparently has lost all of his pace. Average.

Hourihane - This one is a bit more intriguing to be fair, I'd have been happy enough taking a chance on him.

Mendez-Laing - don't know what his form in L1 has been like, but has an absolutely stinking attitude by all accounts. 

Experience is a real positive it goes hand-in-hand with hunger and fitness, so they all could turn out to be v. good signings for Derby for that reason. I think there's a reason that they signed for a L1 club though - if Rovers had signed any of them bar Hourihane I'd see it as panicking. 

Just seen this doing the rounds on twitter. Absolutely vile. £70 for a kids ticket!

3 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

Jimmy is just a phenomenon, about to turn 40 and he is still top class. Looks in superb physical condition too.

Broad, however, looks on his last legs to me…

51 wickets away from matching Shane Warne's total, which seems completely achievable the shape that he's in. Ridiculous record for a pace bower. 

8 minutes ago, Sparks Rover said:

Rubbish, he's not been coached you can tell, he's not done repetition getting to the byline and pulling it back etc....the guy is a top notch full back and to say he can't learn is not right..it most certainly is the fault of our coaching department. 

If I could be arsed I could find at least 10 goals which he's set up so to say he can't do it is bollards

You might struggle with that one - he's set up 7 in his senior career. The guy is a top notch defender, who I wish we were keeping, but his output going forward has been dismal.

I don't see what's so hard to accept about the idea that Nyambe might just find it hard to improve that side of his game. Almost all players at this level are flawed in one way or another, or else they don't stay here for very long. Why do we hold other players responsible for their weaknesses but when it comes to Nyambe's work in the final third, that's all down to poor coaching?

23 minutes ago, Sparks Rover said:

Probably thinks if he spends some time actually coaching his final ball then it's probably a 10m full back on his hands.

We'll have to wait and see on that one.

I liked Nyambe, but sometimes players just have weak aspects to their game. For all of Mowbray's serious flaws, he was talking about working on Nyambe's attacking for years now, so it's not as though it wasn't recognised. 

Too easy to blame the last manager on that one for me. Far more likely that he's just got a low ceiling on that side of his game.

13 minutes ago, Sparks Rover said:

Ye makes you wonder why Wilder is bothering with Nyambe when he can go get any old League 1 full back instead, ten a penny according to some on here...🤔

I do find it curious that Wilder in particular has gone for Nyambe. He even expects his wider centre backs to contribute going forward, let alone his wing backs. 

Must think that he can get a tune out of him where Mowbray couldn't, but he strikes me as close to the opposite style of full back to what he would usually go for. 

1 minute ago, Ruaney said:

You have some strange opinions on players. He's an awful footballer.

Wouldn't go that far, he's been a very good player at this level.

Well past it now though. 

21 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Bairstow has had a couple of hard fought hundreds away from home as well 47er

Particular stand out being the stand he made in the 1st innings at the Waca back in 2017 which was an incredible knock. We got hammered though

Think he got 100 in Australia around Christmas time too

But he has spent his career giving his wicket away too easily for my liking. One of the best white ball cricketers out there though. He's got a long way to go but he's in such a flow I wouldn't bet against him scoring 100 anywhere right now

 

Yeah, that sums up exactly my thoughts to be honest.

I hope that a combination of his age, alongside our new approach means that he can find more consistency for the next five years or so. Obviously it's unrealistic for him to sustain this ridiculous purple patch, but he's so destructive that he could easily be the player that we all hoped Buttler might've been in red ball cricket.

There could be a sense of making up for lost time too.

2 minutes ago, longsiders1882 said:

Oh fantastic news.

As I understand it he's very highly rated, but like a lot of youngsters at top clubs, find the Championship a much steeper learning curve than they might've first imagined. Obviously gets highlighted a lot more when you're a goalkeeper.

Not sure if he would be permanent or not, but we've found that a lot of players you get loan from prem clubs would be great signings if they were on 4 year contracts, but you can really take or leave them if you just keep them for a year and let them make their mistakes. You get the odd exception like Harvey Elliott or Van Hecke last year, but just as often you get a Leighton Clarkson, Tom Lawrence or (dare I say it) Harwood-Bellis who are obviously talented but need more experience before consistently cutting it at the top of the Championship. 

38 minutes ago, Gav said:

Test match cricket has moved on Jim, the likes of Boycott blocking for 4 days for a draw in 1975 don't fit with the modern game.

He's also ground out plenty of scores in the last 2 series, haven't you been watching?

Bairstow game is mainly attack, he has the technique and temperament to attack the 2 best test teams in the world in NZ and India and has been phenomenal and long may it continue. 

Happy to eat some of my words about Bairstow, his form since the ashes has been astounding. 

That said, we shouldn't let recency bias let us forget what the rest of his test career has been like. Forever giving his wicket away until he needed the occasional big innings to stay in the side. Being positive is fine and you expect a few soft dismissals as a result, but he simply hasn't delivered often enough for a player of his talent. 

Almost the first name on the team sheet now though. Long may his new found consistency continue!

40 minutes ago, JHRover said:

There's another solution to the alleged spectre of FFP other than just slashing costs and hoping the kids pull us through.

That solution doesn't get much mention on here or from the people running the club. I presume one of the reasons being that they have no intention of pursuing it and are incapable of doing so.

That solution involves increasing income and turnover, and in doing so give us more scope to invest. That is easier said than done, especially at a Club like Rovers, and requires planning, strategy, ability upstairs. We have none of those things here so instead we have pound-shop level operators cutting pounds and pence off running costs e.g. by doing away with a programme on matchdays and trying to squeeze an extra £30 a year out of hardcore fans.

So we need to stop with this "there's no alternative" other than the route being taken. There is. It just requires more effort and ability than those owning and running us are able to provide.

One glance at the 'local' nature of sponsorship says it all - some seem to think it is a good sign that we only seem to deal with local companies but I think it is just further evidence of a small scale operation incapable of pursuing more substantial deals.

I'd have a bet now that no other Club in this division of those not coming down from the PL will have slashed costs to the level we have in the last 12-18 months and even less will have had the benefit of probably 2x £10 million+ sales to fall back on.

It seems some are uncomfortable with the alternative possibility here which is that FFP is not the big issue, and that the whim of our lunatic owners is just as important if not more so.

I've said it before and will keep on saying it because I strongly believe it is key to this whole operation that the only way these owners will invest proper cash for players is if someone flies out to India, sits down with the Desai bunch and persuades them to do it. The reason the cash has dried up is purely because since 2019 nobody has had the ability to go to India and do this. So we are back into 2015-17 mode now - cutbacks, sales, scaled down budget. We know how it ended last time and I'm a great believer in learning lessons from the recent past rather than ignoring it and hoping all will be fine.

I agree with your assessment of our setup at Ewood, and that commercially we've seemed second rate for some time.

That said, I think we also need to be realistic about what can be achieved to the balance sheet by ticket sales, sponsorship and the like. Our entire commercial revenue in the last accounts I believe was just shy of £5million. A significant increase on that would of course be welcome, but we have to accept there is a ceiling to what this means in terms of FPP and the running of the club.

Player trading, buying low and selling high, is the only game in town (bar promotion) when it comes raising the revenue of the club enough that we can spend substantially more whilst staying compliant with FPP. Obviously this means a bit of spending to accumulate, and protecting assets much better than we have done over the last few years. Slashing costs with no other strategy is a certain recipe for decline, but at there's no point pretending that FPP is an 'alleged spectre' when it's clearly not, or that we could transform our finances with a bit more effort and imagination on the commercial side. 

16 hours ago, AllRoverAsia said:

Great test cricket and pleased that Lees and Crawley got runs.

The first hour tomorrow will dictate the outcome.

To save my typing let me just say that I agree with everything that KP said on Sky post match.

It certainly has!

Absolutely magnificent batting. 

33 minutes ago, booth said:

The same Sheffield United whose CEO has been desperately slashing their wage bill.

Such is the disparity in income that it's entirely possible for them to both slash their wage bill and still blow us (and most of the league) out of the water. 

6 minutes ago, Ghost7 said:

We are starting to feel noncompetitive wage wise in the Championship.

Sadly, we've been noncompetitive for some time when it comes to clubs with parachute payments burning holes in their pockets. 

24 minutes ago, Ghost7 said:

 

Respect the 20 game idea but in my opinion it's totally counter productive to rely on unreliable players. They can do a job in a fixture and are missing in the next, I find on the whole it disrupts a season. I'd rather have someone that can play every week even with less ability. Not only that he is eating up valuable wages that could be used to strengthen the squad. Get rid quickly I say if the opportunity to do so is there. He's been a terrible signing. It would be better if we didn't get ourselves in these situations in the first place by paying a transfer fee for fit defenders.

I'm sympathetic to a lot of that, if we could go back two years and make the same call again I don't think any of us would want to sign him. The fact that he's a centre-back too makes his lack of reliability all the more damaging.

We are where we are, though. If someone takes us off our hands and we can give the £15k a week (or maybe more) on a more reliable player then great. But if we get into the realms of still paying a chunk of his wages just to move him on, then I think we have to be pragmatic enough to recognise that the most value we can get for our outlay is to have a good player for about half a season and make a better decision next summer. 

I wonder if some of the shocking recruitment we made in the Kean years has desensitised us slightly to paying off players. For clubs like ours, I think they should be real worst case scenarios for the Murphys, Orrs or Etuhus who need binning off for the good of the club. Ayala's been a frustrating signing to say the least, but he's not in that bracket. 

8 minutes ago, tomphil said:

We need to 'trade' Ayala if possible not just push him out the door or pay him off.

Get a few quid from some club in a warm country and put his wages to better use otherwise lets have a tune out of him.  If he does well for a few months and helps get points on the board before the inevitable rest then fair enough.  Hopefully JDT and the gang can assess him if we can't get a replacement now there is always Jan.

Think it might be a bit ambitious to get a fee for him - but I agree that we might as well keep him if someone won't take on his entire contract. Twenty games of Ayala next season might end up being valuable, even if we can't rely on him to stay fit.